Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JohnMartin]

Having read a bit about the history of the topic, a bit of that might be valuable.

After the Copernican system was proposed, it clearly fit the data we had on planetary motions better. But people were able to craft fully geocentric geometries that produced roughly the same results. Those died when Galileo saw the phases of Venus, showing that it must orbit the sun. At that point, new geometries were developed that placed the sun orbiting Earth and all the other planets orbiting the sun. Those worked about as well as the Copernican system, but several things began to go wrong. One is that Keplerian orbits fit the data even better. The second is that better observations consistently produced details that didn't fit with the modified geocentric systems. Again, it was possible to craft geometries where things worked again for a time, but it became a perpetual race to the horizon: better data and more time required constant revision. People just gave up trying to get geocentrism and reality to match up.

By the time our observations were good enough, we detected oddities in Mercury's orbit that couldn't be explained by anything. The only thing that works is relativity, something Einstein himself calculated in order to provide support for his theory. (There's a cool book on this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...unt-for-vulcan).

Heliocentrism is with us because it works. It accurately reflects reality. No version of geocentrism can. People who believe otherwise are either ignorant or in denial of reality.

The phases of Venus and Mercury's orbit are accounted for in the modified Tychonian model. A preference of frame for Helio over Geo is in breach of SR and GR.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Show me three I haven't addressed specifically on Heliocentrism and I will do so.

JM

Still waiting for three posts not answered in response to responses to problems with the Helio model.

JM

[Yttrium]

A preference of frame for Helio over Geo is in breach of SR and GR.

It's not a frame of reference thing.

[TheLurch]

A preference of frame for Helio over Geo is in breach of SR and GR.

No, it's not. Your stating that it is doesn't make it so.

[JohnMartin]

No, it's not. Your stating that it is doesn't make it so.

Relativity says there is no preferred reference frame. You say Helio is preferred over Geo. Hence you have breached relativity theory.

JM

[TheLurch]

Relativity says there is no preferred reference frame. You say Helio is preferred over Geo. Hence you have breached relativity theory.

Here, you are demonstrating that you have no idea what "reference frame" means in terms of relativity. The issue is with your mistaken interpretation of a reference frame, not with heliocentrism.

[JohnMartin]

Here, you are demonstrating that you have no idea what "reference frame" means in terms of relativity. The issue is with your mistaken interpretation of a reference frame, not with heliocentrism.

Enunciate the error.

JM

[TheLurch]

When describing any object in motion, relativity requires you to pick a reference frame. So, if you're interested in the moon, you can describe its motion from the reference frame of the earth. But if you're interested in the earth, you can describe its motion from the reference frame of the moon. Both are equally valid reference frames. And, for either of those bodies, you can use a completely different reference frame - the center of the galaxy, the surface of the sun, whatever.

A reference frame says nothing about what's orbiting what. It simply defines a point that is treated as stationary for the sake of calculations. It says nothing about whether the point is actually stationary.

[Yttrium]

Relativity says there is no preferred reference frame. You say Helio is preferred over Geo. Hence you have breached relativity theory.

Helio and Geo are not reference frames. You can look at Earth's frame of reference and still be Helio. You can look at Pluto's reference frame and still be Helio. The Sun isn't the center of the universe, it's just what everything in the solar system revolves around. The solar system is a pretty tiny place compared to the rest of the universe.

[oxmixmudd]

Still waiting for three posts not answered in response to responses to problems with the Helio model.

JM

An 'answer' to a post on your part is does not make your point itself valid. If the post rebutted you claim, and you just refused to accept the answer given, that is just your problem.

It's more or less like this John. You can believe what you want. You can live your life as if you've won every argument you've ever made. You can pretend the throngs who saw the foolishness of your responses where just wrong or prejudiced or biased or whatever term you want to use. Because it's just you. But if you actually want to have persuasive power, if you actually want to know that outside your own little head something you have to say makes sense to someone else, or better yet most other people, then you are going to have to come up with something with substance, that is logically coherent, that actually uses mathematics and logic correctly, and that conforms in some consistent sense to what is known and can be measured about the world.


So far you just haven't even come close. And so you have virtually no capacity to persuade outside your own very, very small clan of insiders that all already believe what you believe.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

Helio and Geo are not reference frames. You can look at Earth's frame of reference and still be Helio. You can look at Pluto's reference frame and still be Helio. The Sun isn't the center of the universe, it's just what everything in the solar system revolves around. The solar system is a pretty tiny place compared to the rest of the universe.

You must predominantly look in the sun frame for the model to be Helio. The Helio model says the sun is virtually stationary compared to the rest of the solar system. All velocities are referred back to the stationary sun. Geo has all velocities referred back to the earth as the absolute zero velocity in the universe. GR says the Helio model has the sun as the dominant local reference frame for motion in the solar system. GR also includes a Geo reference frame for the motions of the universe referred back to the earth.

JM

[Yttrium]

The Helio model says the sun is virtually stationary compared to the rest of the solar system.

The model says that the Sun is moving through space (orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which is itself moving through space), and the planets are in orbit around it; just as the Earth is moving and the Moon and satellites are in orbit around the Earth.

[JohnMartin]

When describing any object in motion, relativity requires you to pick a reference frame. So, if you're interested in the moon, you can describe its motion from the reference frame of the earth. But if you're interested in the earth, you can describe its motion from the reference frame of the moon. Both are equally valid reference frames. And, for either of those bodies, you can use a completely different reference frame - the center of the galaxy, the surface of the sun, whatever.

A reference frame says nothing about what's orbiting what. It simply defines a point that is treated as stationary for the sake of calculations. It says nothing about whether the point is actually stationary.

Geo has the earth as a stationary reference frame. Helio has the sun as the local stationary reference frame.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Geo has the earth as a stationary reference frame. Helio has the sun as the local stationary reference frame.

JM

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, you can define a reference frame where the whole universe revolves around your left buttcheek if you wish. That doesn't make your derriere be the actual stationary center of the universe though.

[Yttrium]

Helio has the sun as the local stationary reference frame.

Wrong. You're just badly mangling relativity.